Or marketing of any kind, for that matter. It is a place for the discussion of substantive issues in law and the legal profession. See above.

Posting links to your law firm website, or to almost any page the primary purpose of which is marketing, will almost certainly result in that post being removed and will more than likely result in you being banned. The moderators use their own judgment in determining what counts as spam. They know it when they see it, and they take action accordingly.

What belongs in this subreddit?

This subreddit is for discussing developments in the law, jurisprudence, and advice for those currently in law school or legal careers.

All 0L posts must be contained within the weekly stickied 0L threads in /r/LawSchool. 0L posts will be removed and redirected to that thread. 0L posts are posts by people not in law school asking about law school-related topics. Please see the r/Lawschool 0L sticky thread for more information.

Need a Lawyer?

Click here for a guide from the American Bar Association that may help you determine when to hire a lawyer, where to find a lawyer, and what to expect from your lawyer.

Can't Afford an Attorney?

/r/Law has organized a list of non-profit legal assistance services that may be able to help you if you're facing legal action.

Check out our FAQ for common questions regarding entering and surviving law school and try /r/LawSchool or /r/LSAT. Questions from those considering and/or applying to law school will be removed and redirected to r/lawschool's weekly stickied 0L thread.

Submissions Not Appearing?

If you think your submissions are being auto-banned, send a message to the mods and we'll take a look.

... that is a pretty ridiculous argument if it weren't for some dumb ass policy drafting. Sometimes it amazes me how carelessly these companies draft the definitions and exclusions in their policies. Even so this might take the cannon of resolving ambiguity against the drafter a little too far. I do not think the term "on" was ambiguous in the context of the definition of occupant.

It seems their better argument would be to distinguish the injuries suffered while "on" the hood and thus an occupant from those suffered by the initial impact with the car. Presumably the latter was more injurious.

"the parties have stipulated that Bennett was on the Fusion—specifically, on its hood—and that she 'suffered further bodily injuries' while she was there. Per the policy’s terms, therefore, Bennett was an 'occupant' of the vehicle and thus entitled to coverage for those additional injuries."

I do insurance defense, but I do believe that State Farm often takes "ridiculous" stances. If they have defined their policy in a fashion that allows this argument, they should not dismiss it as ridiculous. One should always give the appellant the benefit of the doubt. Characterizing their argument as "ridiculous" is just not smart. I have no sympathy for this attorney. None.

That was a pretty unnecessary bench slap. Perhaps ridiculous was the wrong word, as the argument is not deserving of ridicule, but any number of synonyms would have been appropriate.

The argument the court sided with is: when someone gets hit by a car and thrown onto the same, that someone becomes an "occupant" of the vehicle pursuant to policy terms meant to cover those riding motorcycles. I'm all for seeing a smarmy insurance company get slammed, but I cannot fault their counsel for calling the argument ridiculous.

I'm also a little surprised by the tactics used in the lawsuit, although it's likely because I do not know the law in Ohio. In Texas, a direct lawsuit by a struck pedestrian brought against the driver would invoke his insurance coverage. Is this not the case in Ohio? Is there really a need for a pedestrian to wiggle into passenger status?

The pedestrian's injuries were not going to be covered by State Farm and the pedestrian that was struck decided this was the best way to go about getting his injuries covered, unfortunately. If you read the opinion then you can see that Bennett (the plaintiff) originally did go to State Farm to be covered by the driver's insurance policy but State Farm decided against paying out because Bennett was not an "occupant." (Which is also ridiculous to me.) So they had to bring a suit showing they were an occupant. They might have also brought a personal suit against the driver of the vehicle who stipulated that they were at fault. Or maybe the Bennett's are nice and gave the driver a break and expected the insurance company to do what they are supposed to do.

It is a "ridiculous" argument. But State Farm parsed the language that way and probably were trying to get out of covering bills for the woman that got hit by the insured. I also agree with the comment on the article that the court is trying to send a message to all of the insurance companies in the state.

On a semi tangential note: these cases would probably be less insane if hospital bills and all that health care stuff wasn't so jacked up. It would probably make a big difference if one or two less zeroes were on the bill.

I live in Ohio but I'm not a lawyer so don't feel like looking all that stuff up right now about invoking insurance coverage :p

I understand that State Farm denied coverage. I understand that State Farm said that it could reasonably refuse a direct claim under the policy because the person was not a passenger. But I don't buy for a second that the automotive insurance policy did not cover negligently running into a pedestrian. Generally though, this coverage is invoked through the driver, and not through some direct claim on the policy.

Edit: State Farm had already paid the Plaintiff the policy limits. She wanted (and got) a second bite at the apple through this argument.

I think the point that the court was making was that parties should err on the side of civility and use argument, rather than using colorful language to deride their opponent (no matter what synonym they're using). Stating that an opposing party's position is "ridiculous" is not argument, and it reduces the level of discourse.

That being said, you and State Farm may both believe their argument to be ridiculous. Apparently the court did not. And that's entirely the point - it's a subjective adjective that doesn't add to the discussion, and it alienates the reader.

Right. I understood what the court was trying to say, but I think the court is wrong in its bench slap. The opening and introduction to the insurance company's brief listed its arguments, explained the logical reasoning behind the same, and ultimately called the other side's argument ridiculous. The brief then outlined and expanded on its points and concluded by basically saying - "See! The other side's argument IS ridiculous!"

Now ultimately the court ruled against the insurance company, which is fine and dandy, but it's not like the insurance company did not have a reasoned argument for using the word "ridiculous."

I guess what I'm really getting at is that, in this case, the court is being a little dickish, which is perfectly within the court's ability, but still - it's unnecessary (and ridiculous.)

I'm not sure that I agree with you. First, I don't have State Farm's brief available, but the linked opinion states that "the hyperbole begins on page one of the brief." So it would appear that State Farm led with "ridiculous," instead of laying out all of it's careful arguments and then concluding with ridiculous. If you have the brief available, I'd be happy to read it and correct myself.

Second, I don't see the court being dickish (though I've known many courts to be that way...). The court doesn't insult State Farm or its attorneys, it merely offers some rather civil advice about civility. That may cause the attorneys a bit of embarrassment, but that doesn't mean the court is being a dick. Calling someone's position "ridiculous" is a bit more dickish than saying "hey, you catch more flies with honey," isn't it?

The brief is on PACER. The use of "ridiculous" is actually on Page 4 of the brief in the argument summary. (It would be virtually impossible to have a brief follow appellate rules and use the word "ridiculous" on Page 1.)

The summary of the argument section reads as follows:

Mrs. Bennett is not entitled to medical payments coverage under the State Farm Policy because she does not qualify as insured for such coverage. As explained below, Mrs. Bennett seeks insured status for such coverage by claiming that she was “occupying” Pastel’s car when she was thrown “on” the hood of the car during the impact.

This ridiculous argument is contrary to the intent of the State Farm Policy, contrary to common sense and apparently contrary to every single case in Ohio and across the nation that has considered similar arguments. Indeed, Mrs. Bennett fails to cite a single case directly supporting her argument.

State Farm is not exaggerating its position. It's also important to remember that State Farm already won this argument the first time. Also, to answer my question from earlier, State Farm had already settled the liability case. This was Bennett's second bite at the apple, trying to obtain benefits as both an "insured" under the policy and one who could hold the policyholder as liable.

State Farm does not use the word ridiculous again, but concludes by referencing the argument as "absurd." Again, I think it's great to see State Farm get popped for extra liability on entirely new (and likely wrong) precedent based on potentially sloppy policy drafting, but State Farm's attorneys did not deserve being chastised by the Court in that manner.

I have to disagree at least partially. The jury didn't have to agree that the person became an occupant. Rather they had to agree that the document defines that person as an occupant, which I agree, it does. A jury is theoretically supposed to make a finding using the definitions provided. While the practical application is ridiculous, based on the definition provided I have to agree that the parties decided on a somewhat loose definition of occupant and that this meets that definition

|The argument the court sided with is: when someone gets hit by a car and thrown onto the same, that someone becomes an "occupant" of the vehicle pursuant to policy terms meant to cover those riding motorcycles.|

I disagree. The court didn't side with an argument. The court accepted the plain English of the contract authored by State Farm.

Makes sense to me. I assume other circuits are the same way, but if there's one thing my circuit (and my state court) is usually good at, it's coming up with a proper interpretation of and construing against the drafter of an insurance contract.

State Farm said a person who is "on" a vehicle is an occupant. Sure, they almost certainly only meant to cover people on motorcycles and such, but that's not exactly what they said.

Insurance policies are construed for the benefit of the policyholder against the insurance company. Plaintiff is not the policyholder. This decision actually detriments the policyholder and the insurance company in favor of a non-party to the contract.

State Farm also defined "pedestrian" and being "struck as a pedestrian" in the contract.

But the pedestrian is an intended third party beneficiary (I assume, based just on the article) and as such would generally be treated as a party to the contract. But again, I didn't read the whole opinion so I might be wrong about that.

Arguing that a pedestrian hit by vehicle becomes an "occupant" of that vehicle simply because they ended up "on" the car is a ridiculous argument.

More ridiculous is the fact that the 6th Circuit bought it. Apparently the Court doesn't understand that "occupant" refers to an "occupant" at the time the accident occurred, not after. They're just forcing contracts to require* even more burdensome language.

I read it. Applying the court's logic - based on a definition of "occupant" as including someone who is "on" the vehicle, if there was a car accident, and one car ended up on top the State Farm car, then State Farm's insurance policy covers the occupants of both vehicles because the occupant in the other vehicle was "on" the other vehicle. I could think of a number of absurd results that can come from their interpretation, but I like one from a commenter:

So according to this court, one can become an occupant of the vehicle after the accident occurs. By that logic an unrelated pedestrian could jump in the bed of a pickup after a wreck and get benefits. Right.

That's an absurd and obviously unintended application of State Farm's contract. IIRC, it's a common contract principle that you should not interpret a provision in such a way that it leads to an absurd result. That's exactly what the court did here.

it wasn't the court's logic, it was the language of the contract, which specifically defined "occupant" as including someone who is "on" the covered vehicle. State Farm's drafting of the contract was certainly ridiculous though. Without that definition they helpfully provided, they wouldn't have been liable here. The Webster's dictionary definition of occupant wouldn't have covered the person. Courts aren't and shouldn't be in the business of overriding the terms of contracts to do what they feel makes the most sense.

It was the court's interpretation of the language of the contract. IMO, it's a plain misinterpretation. The court interpreted the contractual definition of "occupant" to include people who did not "occupy" the vehicle at the beginning of the accident. It's a terrible interpretation.

Parties to a contract are bound to the terms of the contract. Here, State Farm defined "occupant" in the agreement they drafted. This definition was agreed upon by the parties as signified by their signature on the agreement and the payment of premiums in accordance with the terms of the contract. Plainly stated, you are incorrect. The definition of "occupant" within the contract controls the meaning of "occupant" not the common usage. Here, the definition agreed to by the parties was not de facto unconscionable and simply stated for the terms of the agreement, "in, on entering or alighting from [the vehicle]". Thus since the plaintiff was "on" the vehicle's hood, she meets the definition of "occupant" within the terms of the agreement. State Farm wished to have the court determine occupancy by a subjective test. This test serves as a last resort where the language of the contract is unclear. The contract says on, this is what the parties agreed to, there is no ambiguity. Moreover there is no interpretation. The Court simply stated the black and white requirements of the contract. The contract says "on", the Plaintiff was "on". No interpretation, no fuss, no muss. The Court interpreting would be "well what amount of "on-ness" did the parties really consider when entering into this agreement. Why be subjective when the plain meaning of the language of the contract is clear that an occupant includes one who is "on" the vehicle?

There's almost* always interpretation when it comes to contracts, including this case. The plaintiff was not "on" the vehicle at the beginning of the accident. But the plaintiff was "on" the vehicle after the accident. The Court chose to apply the latter application of "on" in this case, which, of course, is the unintended interpretation.

The pedestrian wasn't any more an "occupant" of the vehicle than someone who sits on the car after the accident.

Courts aren't and shouldn't be in the business of overriding the terms of contracts to do what they feel makes the most sense.

I agree with this, but I think the above commentator does have a certain point. You can hardly claim that courts will always adhere to the most absolute, strict, literal interpretation of the language in a contract. After all, the point of contractual interpretation is determine what mutual agreements the parties made. Even with the definition State Farm wrote into the policy, can you really argue with a straight face that either the insurer or the policy holder intended that defined term to mean what the court said it means?